Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That’s all been considered and there are solutions. It’s nothing complicated.
Yes, exactly. How is that any different from the existing system where power given is temporary and positions are constantly rotated?
Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn’t an argument against anything other than humanity
Yes, exactly. Any system without robust checks and balances is powerless against tyranny. You’ve got it backwards though, anarchy is by far more susceptible to tyranny because checks and balances are ultimately hierarchical. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have spent decades laying the groundwork for their brand of tyranny, and still Trump doesn’t have the power to do everything he wants because the power we set up for him has rules and limitations, checks and balances.
You’re arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren’t trying to figure anything out for yourself.
Untrue. I only asked for the most basic information and you didn’t have anything. I’ve spent a great deal of thought over the last few decades trying to figure these things out for myself, aided by the hundreds of schools of political thought. I’m not saying these things and asking these questions because I couldn’t be bothered to think for myself. I say these things precisely because I’ve figured these things out extensively, and have found this particular class of thought to be desperately lacking.
You aren’t so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven’t considered.
And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I’ve read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.
And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I’ve read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.
This comment says enough about this conversation. They make better arguments in your opinion. You think your opinion is everything though.
That’s obtuse. Everyone bases everything on their opinion. You develop your opinion with information of the world. You’re likewise basing everything on your opinion. Heliocentrists make better arguments than geocentrists in my opinion too, doesn’t make that opinion wrong. Human reason is just the process of refining our opinions of the world.
I read the theory, I weighed it against the evidence of my experience, I came to conclusions. When theory conflicts with evidence, evidence takes precedence.
Yes, exactly. How is that any different from the existing system where power given is temporary and positions are constantly rotated?
Yes, exactly. Any system without robust checks and balances is powerless against tyranny. You’ve got it backwards though, anarchy is by far more susceptible to tyranny because checks and balances are ultimately hierarchical. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have spent decades laying the groundwork for their brand of tyranny, and still Trump doesn’t have the power to do everything he wants because the power we set up for him has rules and limitations, checks and balances.
Untrue. I only asked for the most basic information and you didn’t have anything. I’ve spent a great deal of thought over the last few decades trying to figure these things out for myself, aided by the hundreds of schools of political thought. I’m not saying these things and asking these questions because I couldn’t be bothered to think for myself. I say these things precisely because I’ve figured these things out extensively, and have found this particular class of thought to be desperately lacking.
And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I’ve read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.
This comment says enough about this conversation. They make better arguments in your opinion. You think your opinion is everything though.
That’s obtuse. Everyone bases everything on their opinion. You develop your opinion with information of the world. You’re likewise basing everything on your opinion. Heliocentrists make better arguments than geocentrists in my opinion too, doesn’t make that opinion wrong. Human reason is just the process of refining our opinions of the world.
I read the theory, I weighed it against the evidence of my experience, I came to conclusions. When theory conflicts with evidence, evidence takes precedence.